Wisteria Gardens
5420 Highway 80 East, Pearl, MS 39208 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 52 certified beds · (601) 988-6800 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (62%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.5% | 20.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.3% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 6.9% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 16.7% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.0% | 23.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 6.3% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 45.4% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 2.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.6% | 84.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.6% | 27.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.5% | 15.5% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
62.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 765 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 327 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 1.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 62.0%CMS range 59.4–64.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 7.9–11.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 66.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 71.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 65.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 99.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 4.8–9.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.99 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 52 beds and averages 44.7 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.43 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.62 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.02 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 62% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility statment review the facility failed to ensure a safe smoking program and failed to assess a resident for safe smoking practices for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for accident hazards. Resident #17.FindingsRecord review of a typed statement on facility letterhead dated 3/11/26 and signed by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed, (Name of Facility) does not have a policy requiring the completion of a smoking assessment for Residents who use tobacco products.On 03/09/26 at 11:41 AM, Resident #17 was observed eating lunch in his room with cigarettes visible in the front pocket of his shirt.On 03/11/26 at 8:18 AM, Resident #17 was observed traveling in a wheelchair down the hallway near the nurse's station with cigarettes in the front pocket of his shirt.During an interview on 03/11/26 at 12:53 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 stated the resident's family visits and the resident smokes outside with family members or a staff member…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection prevention and hand hygiene practices during catheter care for one (1) of three (3) residents observed for infection control. Resident #32.Findings included:Record review of the facility policy Handwashing reviewed 1/25 revealed Policy: Employees must wash their hands using antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial soap and water; alcohol-based hand rub may be used if hands are not visibly soiled.After handling items potentially contaminated with blood, body fluids, or secretions .On 03/10/26 at 1:18 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 was observed performing catheter care for Resident #32. During care, the resident's perineal area was observed to have an open area that was actively bleeding. CNA #1 wiped the resident's perineum four separate times using incontinent wipes while wearing the same gloves that had become visibly contaminated with blood. CNA #1 did not remove the contaminated gloves,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-02-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store food and maintain sanitary practices in accordance with professional standards for food safety related to expired foods, freezer burned foods, improperly stored foods, and unlabeled and undated foods for two (2) of (2) kitchen observations. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Handling of Perishable Foods, Revision Date: 09/2/2022 revealed, Policy: To ensure foods are protected from contamination or spoilage. Any growth of organisms is prevented by proper storage and temperatures .Policy .10. All items .will be properly labeled with the Item, Initials, Date and use by date .12. Any food items not properly stored will be disposed of immediately . On 02/18/2025 at 10:15 AM, during an observation of the kitchen and an interview with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), the walk-in refrigerator was observed to contain a one (1) gallon bottle of lime juice with a manufacturer's date of 07/18/2024 on the lid and a white cloudy film at the bottom of the bottle. There were (2)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-20 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent (5%) as evidenced by three (3) errors were observed out of 29 medication administration opportunities. This affected two (2) of four (4) residents observed during medication pass, resulting in a medication error rate of 10.34%. (Resident #43 and Resident #154) Findings Include: A record review of facility's policy Medication and Treatment Orders, undated, revealed, .Orders for medications and treatments will be consistent with principles of safe and effective order writing . Resident #43 A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #43 on 01/20/2025 with current diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). A record review of the Order Summary Report, with Active Orders As Of: 2/19/25, revealed Resident #43 ' s had a Physician ' s Order, dated 2/13/25 for Breo Ellipta Inhalation Powder Breath Activated, one (1) puff one puff inhaled orally once daily for COPD . On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to correctly code a Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge assessment for one (1) of fourteen (14) sampled residents reviewed for assessment accuracy. Resident #48 Findings Include: Record review of the facility's, Accurate Completion of Social Determinates of Health -Minimum Data Set (MDS) Policy dated October 2023 revealed It is the policy of this facility to ensure that . data are accurately captured within the MDS per the current Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Guidelines .The MDS Coordinator will ensure that these data elements are carried out timely and coded accurately . Record review of the Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #48 revealed an admission date of 11/13/24. Record review of the Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/10/24 in Section A revealed Resident #48 was discharged to an acute hospital. Record review of the facility's, Progress Notes revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were safely and securely stored for one (1) of four (4) residents observed for medication administration. Resident #43 Findings Include: A record review of the facility's Medication Labeling and Storage revised 2/2023, revealed, .The facility stores all medication and biologicals in locked compartments .Medication Storage .2. The nursing staff is responsible for maintaining medications storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner . On 02/19/2025 at 9:45 AM, during an observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, Albuterol Sulfate HFA Inhalation Aerosol Solution was observed on Resident #43's nightstand table in a clear plastic bag. On 02/19/2025 at 2:14 PM, during an interview, LPN #3 stated that no medications should be left at the bedside unless there is a physician's order permitting it. She explained that leaving medications at the bedside could result in the resident overdosing on the medication, which could cause damage to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — isolatedHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to sustain corrective actions to prevent recurrence of a previously cited deficiency. Specifically, the facility was cited for failing to label, date, and discard expired items stored in the refrigerator, freezer, and dry storage room during an annual recertification survey on 10/19/23 and was cited again for the same deficiency during the current survey, demonstrating that QAPI failed to sustain ongoing monitoring and oversight to prevent recurrence for one (1) of six (6) deficiencies cited. F812 Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program, undated, revealed .The facility shall .maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee that oversees the implementation of the QAPI Program .Committee Audit Process .2. The QAPI Committee shall help various departments .develop and implement plans of correction and monitoring approaches .3. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow infection prevention guidelines in two (2) of (10) observed care procedures as evidenced by staff did not don (put on) appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including gowns, per Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube and Foley catheter care for Resident #43 and Resident #251. Findings Include: A record review of the facility's policy Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated April 2024 revealed .Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. EBP will be used in conjunction with standard precautions and expand the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to donning of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of Multidrug resistant organism (MDROs) to staff . Resident #43 On February 19, 2025, at 1:42 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 was observed providing care to Resident #43's PEG tube site.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure items in the kitchen refrigerators, freezers, and the dry storage room were dated, labeled, and discarded by the expiration date for one (1) of three (3) dietary observations. This has the potential to affect all residents receiving meals prepared by the facility's dietary department. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Storage (Dry, Refrigerated, and Frozen) dated 2016, revealed, . Discard food that has passed the expiration date, and discard food that has been prepared in the facility after seven days of storing under proper refrigeration . An observation of the kitchen on 10/16/2023 at 9:15 AM, with the Dietary Manager (DM), revealed several expired food items. There were three (3) 46 ounce (oz). cartons of [NAME] Ready Care cranberry cocktail, with a received date of 11/22/22, and an expiration date of 2/23. There were six (6) 24 oz bottles of Hershey's chocolate syrup, with an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-19 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to manage a resident's pain by not administering medication per physician orders for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for pain. Resident # 6 Findings include: A review of the facility policy, Pain Assessment Management, with a revision date of 9/2023, revealed, Purpose: The purposes of this procedure are to help the staff identify pain in the resident, and to develop interventions that are consistent with the resident's goals and needs that address the underlying causes of pain . The medication regimen is implemented as ordered. Results of the interventions are documented and communicated directly to the provider when appropriate . On 10/16/23 at 10:32 AM, in an interview with Resident #6, she revealed she has back and leg pain. She stated her pain is controlled by a pain patch on her back, but the nurse had told her that the facility is out of the patch. On 10/17/23 at 11:09 AM, during an interview with Resident #6, she commented that the facility was still out of her pain patch.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-10-19 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to post the daily staffing hours for public viewing (4) of four (4) days reviewed for staff posting. Findings include: Record review of the facility's policy, Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers, undated, revealed .Our facility will post, on a daily basis for each shift, the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Within two (2) hours of the beginning of each shift, the number of Licensed Nurses (RNs, LPNs, and LVNs) (Registered Nurses, Licensed, Practical Nurses, and Licensed Vocational Nurses) and the number of unlicensed nursing personnel (CNAs) (Certified Nurse Aides) directly responsible for resident care will be posted in a prominent location (accessible to, residents and visitors) .5. Within two (2) hours of the beginning of the shift, the shift supervisor shall compute the number of direct care staff and complete the Nursing Staff Directly Responsible for Resident Care form . and post the staffing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASHLEY HEALTHCARE, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 12/04/2007 |
| KICKAPOO PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| M-D TRANSPORTATION LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| SIGNATURE HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| TOWN CREEK COMPANY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| GALLOWAY, CHARLES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| HILL, WILLIAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| MAXEY, JOHN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| MCCAY, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| WALKER, BEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/04/2007 |
| ALBERT, MICHAEL | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/04/2007 |
| SHELTON, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/19/2019 |
| ASHLEY MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/04/2007 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MS
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Mississippi Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 255325. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-11, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.